Members of the American Diabetes Association have launched a boycott of the organization, escalating a dispute that began at its annual conference in June when five scientists were removed from the meeting in New Orleans. The boycott reaches into core professional functions, with signatories pledging to stop reviewing grants and new articles submitted to the ADA’s flagship journal, Diabetes Care, while also suspending participation in meetings led by ADA leadership or the board and “all other ADA activities.”
The action matters because it moves the conflict from a conference governance issue into the association’s scientific machinery. According to Steven Kahn, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington and editor-in-chief of Diabetes Care, the open letter had already drawn hundreds of signatures, including former presidents of the association, major prize winners, award winners of the association and leaders in international diabetes.
The road here
Kahn was one of the five ADA members forcibly removed from the June conference after distributing an editorial criticizing the Trump administration’s cuts to federal science spending. He was also the lead author of that editorial. In comments to Fierce, Kahn framed the episode as a free speech issue, saying, “I grew up in South Africa under apartheid. I know what it is to live in a country where there's no free speech.”
The ADA’s public explanation has shifted over the past several days. In a Sept. 1 release, the organization said its Audit and Review Committee, which reports to its board, had concluded that “five attendees were removed due to conduct that disrupted the event and violated the ADA Attendee Code of Conduct,” and that the action was unrelated to the contents of the material they were handing out.
Kahn said his interpretation of that investigation was that “fundamentally, it said that the police had done nothing wrong, and that we had not sought permission to distribute materials.” He also said the ADA had acknowledged that its “communication could have been better.”
Five days later, on Sept. 6, the ADA issued another press release saying the organization’s “initial findings did not take into account the full breadth and depth” of the investigation and that further facts were still to come. Kahn suggested those facts may come from interviews conducted with the five people who were removed.
What the boycott changes
The immediate pressure point is not only reputational. By extending to journal and grant-review activity, the boycott threatens to disrupt functions that depend on volunteer scientific labor and institutional legitimacy.
That makes this more than an internal membership dispute. Professional associations derive influence from their ability to convene experts, validate research and maintain trust in their governance. A boycott that includes Diabetes Care signals that some members are now contesting not just a conference decision but the authority of current leadership to steward the association’s scientific role.
The ADA said it is aware of the boycott but did not respond to questions about specific actions under consideration. In a statement to Fierce, the organization said: “We sincerely appreciate all of the professionals who continue to support and make a meaningful difference in the diabetes communities we serve. At the ADA, we remain focused on serving the millions of people counting on us to deliver on our mission.”
Past open letters from ADA members have already called for the removal of CEO Charles “Chuck” Henderson and other leaders. The boycott raises the stakes because it creates a measurable test of whether discontent remains symbolic or begins to impair the association’s normal operations.
